This issue does not get enough attention. There was acres of coverage over whether the government should apologise for slavery - something from which no one alive today suffered and for which no one alive is responsible. Yet this government persists in upholding an injustice against some of its most vulnerable subjects - an outrage in which both the victims and some of the members of the then government are still alive. The government should be ashamed of how it abused the royal prerogative to overturn their court loss, and pay recompense on top of letting them return. So they now have the right to live here, the govt claims - would anyone settle for living in a completely different land, thousands of miles from their home?

Duncan Sutherland, London,

This shameful act does indeed form a blot on our national reputation and character. The sooner the decision is reversed and the islanders allowed to return home the better.

Richard Ellis, London, United Kingdom

I was born and lived the Island of Mauritius formany many years. And I can tell you that that the Chagos people are one of the poorest people of the country. They gave so much of what they had to fight in courts against Britain to be able to get back to their Island. From my standpoint, British and American just want power to control the Indian Ocean. The petrol is just a little way up. They do not care a damn about the Chagos natives.

NN, Louisville, KY

Not only should we be letting these people go back to their home but we should be bracking our backs to give them what ever technology they need to sustain their lifes on their island. It's a national disgrace that we are letting our government get away with this. Maybe once Blur's gone Brown will let his much boasted about 'moral compass' set things right. But I'm not holding my breath.

Susan, Barry, S Wales

It is time for the Queen to rescind the order made in her name to expell the islanders. She has a personal responsibility towards her subjects, and a duty to protect them from abusive powers.

I believe she can and should direct that this matter be passed to parliament or the courts and that the Royal Perogative used on this matter be cancelled.

If parliament decides that the expulsion is required, then they can pass a formal act in its support. Otherwise, let the rule of law be upheld and the government must follow the courts decisions.

Let us not forget that the subject matter may have little interest to the majority of citizens, but the underlying principle of a government obeying a legal decision handed down by a court is what this is now about. That is a matter that affects the everyday lives of all who live in the United Kingdom, now and in the future.

Jonathan Mills, Brighton,

Whilst fairness and justice for the Chagos islanders should be the overriding objective, possibly the most distasteful aspect of the matter could be the possibility that the apparent reluctance to rule in their favour might be an entrenched notion that actions which can be seen in retrospect to have been possibly misguided must at all costs be defended to avoid loss of face.

The irony is that attempts to cover up in this way ultimately cause far greater loss of credibility than a simple apology and appropriate compensation.

dr venables preller, Warminster, UK

my mother was station on Diego Garcia in the early 90s when she was in the navy. she told me quite a bit about the island, but this never came up. ive also never heard mention of it in any other history realted document. it is utteroly deplorable what the US will do(with or without someone to do the actual dirty work) in the name of 'protection'. i see it as no more than a hitler light version of removing what is in your way. give the island back to the people it belongs to, and practice a little of what you so loudly preach as a country.

Amber Evans, Seattle, WA, USA

So, here we have it. Proof, if that were needed that successive British Governments have cow-towed to US demands.

I like the reference to the Zimbabwe state of affairs; what is happening there is, effectively, a form of ethnic cleansing. Yes, the original white incomers were "settlers". However, they developed an otherwise undeveloped country. Their motives for so doing are varied: Creating a new life; building farms to plant crops like wheat, maize, tobacco - for the purpose of both self support and making money through exports. Nothing immorral about these.

Some of the few white people remaining in Zimbabwe are third generation Rhodesians. Their forefathers created that country through their own determination and toil.

Do the British Government give a damn about the destruction of this once self-sufficient and vibrant country?

Not really.

Odd that ... Zimbabwe has no oil. Or, perhaps, that is the point!

Tony J, , Swanage, UK

There is a somewhat similar case in Greenland in which a group of Innuit tribesmen are attempting to reclaim some of their land which has been used as a U.S. military base since the 1940's- The case has been held up in the courts in Denmark for the past few years- Some who are familiar with this case predict that whatever the decision of the Danish government, the decision will likely be challenged by the losing party at the next level of legislatie body, one of the courts of either the court of the European Union, the United Nations or NATO. It will be interesting to see how these cases progress-

Scott Benowitz, Rye, New York, U.S.A.

In Canada, a solution for complaints brought by aboriginal peoples is sometimes expedited by the noble appeal to "the honour of the Crown". To think that such an injustice could have been done to the Chagos Islanders by repeated orders-in-council approved by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of ministers who are sworn first to maintain her honour, not the foreign policy of the United States, is a scandal. I hope the Chagos Islanders will be restored to their patrimony, as British courts have repeatedly declared is their right.

Richard Toporoski, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada